COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-1241
DATE: 20190426
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
VISITA LEELARATNA
Applicant
– and –
MEGHA LEELARATNA
Respondent
Gil D. Rumstein, for the Applicant
Rodney B. Cross, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 25, 2019
ENDORSEMENT
Audet j.
[1] This motion is brought by the applicant father seeking the resumption of access between him and the parties’ son, Udara (12). As per my order of October 10, 2018 (the “October 2018 Order”), the father’s access with Udara was temporarily suspended and the parties were to engage in several therapeutic services with a view of working towards the resumption of access between father and son.
[2] I find that both parties have fully met their obligations pursuant to my October 2018 Order as it relates to them accessing therapeutic services for themselves. Time (and the evidence at trial) will tell whether accessing those services has ultimately had a meaningful and lasting impact on the parents’ behaviour, which was described in my previous decision. I am concerned about the fact that, despite my clear order that neither parent was to communicate with Udara’s counsellor unless at the counsellor’s specific request, the father has attended an hour long session with Dr. Goldstein (Udara’s confidential counsellor) before her retainer was even confirmed, to share with her his views, concerns and experience as it relates to his relationship with Udara.
[3] Based on the evidence before me, it appears that Dr. Golstein was not yet aware of the restrictions I had imposed on the parents’ involvement in what was to be confidential counselling between Udara and her. While it is not entirely clear from the evidence before me whether Dr. Goldstein required the initial intake meeting with the father or whether he booked one on his own, in the former case it seems to me that the father ought to have raised this issue with Dr. Goldstein before meeting with her (as the mother did when she was contacted by Dr. Goldstein) and in the latter case he would have been clearly in breach of my October 2018 Order.
[4] I am further concerned about the mother’s evidence at para. 24 of her affidavit in which she states that the father followed her while they were both driving on April 10, after she left Dr. Goldstein’s office with Udara. He allegedly followed her until she let him pass her by, which was very upsetting to Udara. While I do not have the father’s response to that allegation for the purpose of this motion, if proven true this behavior would cause me to be very concerned about the father’s continued lack of insight as to how his behaviour might adversely impact Udara’s wellbeing. The father is strongly warned against trying to get in contact with Udara outside of the parameters set out by this court, or within the context of reunification therapy.
[5] The parties are also reminded of my October 2018 Order which precludes both parents from communicating with Dr. Goldstein in any way, shape or form, unless at her specific and express request. I shall entertain a contempt motion on four days’ notice should either parent breach this particular provision of my prior order. The only exception to this clear order is that the mother is free to communicate with Dr. Goldstein on a regular basis for the purpose of arranging and scheduling Udara’s meetings with her.
[6] Despite the father’s allegations to the contrary, I find that the mother has met her obligation to engage Udara in counselling in accordance with my October 2018 Order and that she has cooperated fully with Udara’s counsellor, Dr. Golstein, in arranging regular and ongoing meetings between them. It is clear from the evidence before me that Dr. Goldstein believed that one meeting per month with Udara was sufficient at this time and I have no evidence that would suggest that the mother in any way interfered with Udara’s counselling. In fact, I find based on the evidence before me that she acted promptly to secure a counsellor for Udara and that she proceeded to schedule monthly meetings without delay.
Interim Access
[7] This is a very difficult situation that these parties and Udara are in. I wish to assure the father that I am very mindful of the fact that he has not seen Udara nine months, and that the trial in this matter is scheduled to proceed only in September. I am urged by counsel for the father to impose some supervised access between Udara and his father, even if very limited, out of serious concerns that the delays may irrevocably end any possibility of reunification between father and son, as presaged by Dr. Weinberger last fall. I am also urged to allow some limited supervised contact before trial if only to allow the parties and the court to obtain some independent evidence from access supervisors about how Udara does in fact react to resumed contact with his father.
[8] Despite counsel’s able arguments, I am not prepared to order the resumption of access between Udara and his father at this time, even on a very limited and supervised basis. I come to this conclusion based on the following reasons:
a. Udara continues to be strongly opposed to access with his father at this time. This has been clearly and consistently communicated by him in many ways to various people (his school, the CAS, his mother, his counsellor, his lawyer);
b. According to emotional testing performed by Dr. Goldstein, the results of which were shared by her with both parents, Udara shows signs of severe trauma, anxiety, depression, uncertainty, fear, anger and sadness;
c. As recently as March 12, 2019, and on his (mis)understanding that he may be sent to live with his father, a very emotionally distraught Udara sought the help of his school to call the Children’s Aid Society to assist him in preventing this from happening. This resulted in yet another intervention by the Children’s Aid Society with this family;
d. Udara is just starting to build some trust with Dr. Goldstein, and reunification therapy has not yet begun. Ms. Nadine Crowley, who will be providing this therapy, has confirmed that according to Dr. Goldstein, Udara “may be ready” to begin the process but that it would “have to be at his pace”, which is also how Ms. Crowley works within the context of reunification therapy;
e. I have reviewed, once again, Dr. Weinberger’s assessment report produced in 2018 and upon which I relied heavily in the context of the October 2018 motion. In particular, I am reminded of the following conclusions he arrived at:
The reconstructive work cannot be in a vacuum if there is to be hope of success. The foundation for it will need to be built via each of the individual counselling efforts above-noted. There needs to be at least some measure of progress at the father’s end, the mothers’ end, and at Udara’s end, for the reconstructive process to have something to work with to give it practical support.
There is no quick fix that I can see to this situation given the strength of emotions and the imbededness of some of the challenges. For the needed changes to occur one can foresee that intervention will need to be comprehensive, integrated, and over the long-term.
f. Dr. Goldstein has not yet confirmed whether Udara is ready to begin reunification therapy. Making an order for supervised access in spite of the above would be to override and undermine the reunification process that I have ordered, and that the father himself advocated for very strongly in the past. It may even defeat it entirely and irrevocably.
[9] While I appreciate that the father has had no contact with Udara since July of 2018, and that he is understandably desperate to reunify with him, all of the evidence before me persuade me that imposing access on Udara at this time, in the current circumstances, will most likely cause him significant emotional distress and, potentially, even physical harm. I simply do not know what Udara might do if and when he finds out that access will be imposed upon him, and I am not prepared to take that risk at this time.
[10] This being said, the trial in this matter is proceeding in four months. So far, Udara has met with Dr. Goldstein on five occasions since she was formally retained in December 2018. I share the father’s view that this is not enough. While I am very respectful of the professionals’ views as to how they will choose to work with Udara within the reunification process, and of their expressed intention to do so at Udara’s own pace, meaningful and concerted efforts need to be deployed in order to ascertain Udara’s level of readiness to engage in the reunification process, and for the process to begin at the earliest opportunity if/when he is. I feel that one meeting per month with Dr. Goldstein is not sufficient to achieve that goal.
[11] As a result, I make the following temporary order:
a. The father’s request for interim supervised access to Udara is dismissed for the time being.
b. The mother shall take all necessary steps to insure that Udara meets with Dr. Goldstein every second week, beginning no later than the week of May 6th, 2019, unless Dr. Goldstein is of the view that this frequency of meetings will be or becomes detrimental to Udara’s emotional or psychological wellbeing. In that case, Dr. Goldstein (who shall have no obligation to motivate her opinion in that regard), is asked to immediately notify Ms. Barron, who will immediately notify the parties. If necessary to ensure bi-weekly meetings, Udara shall be taken out of school to attend his meetings with Dr. Goldstein.
c. The mother is responsible to make the necessary arrangements for the scheduling of Udara’s counselling sessions with Dr. Goldstein, promptly.
d. By no later than the end of June 2019, Ms. Barron shall obtain from Dr. Goldstein confirmation as to whether Udara is ready to begin the reunification process with Ms. Nadine Crowley, unless this process has already begun.
e. This motion shall return before me during the first week of July 2019 (unless counsel are unavailable in which case it shall return during the last week of June), at a date to be arranged through Trial Coordination. At that time, the father’s request for the resumption of supervised access, as well as any issues with regards to Udara’s attendance at meetings with Ms. Crowley and either of his parents, will be assessed/reassessed. Ms. Crowley’s input into how, in her view, Udara’s initial contact with his father should take place would be useful to the court, if it can be obtained.
f. The mother shall immediately take steps to schedule her intake meeting with Ms. Crowley, which is to take place as soon as possible.
g. On consent of the parties, their real estate lawyer who currently holds the net proceeds from the sale of the parties’ matrimonial home is hereby directed to use the remaining funds to pay (in part or in full) Ms. Barron’s outstanding accounts for professional fees. If there are any funds left after Ms. Barron’s accounts are paid, those funds are to be paid to the parties’ family law counsel, Mr. Rodney Cross and Mr. Gil Rumstein, in equal shares and in trust for Mr. and Ms. Leelaratna. These funds are to be used by the parties for the payment of Ms. Crowley’s professional fees.
h. On consent of the father, and on a without prejudice basis, once there is no fund left in trust pursuant to paragraph g) above, the father shall be responsible to pay all of Ms. Crowley’s fees pending trial.
Costs
[12] Costs are reserved.
Madam Justice Julie Audet
Released: April 26, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-1241
DATE: 20190426
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
VISITA LEELARATNA
Applicant
– and –
MEGHA LEELARATNA
Respondent
REASONS FOR decision
Audet J.
Released: April 26, 2019